Jones v. Fikes
- Susan Nelson
- 0:20-cv-01341
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Jones v. Fikes, Magistrate Judge Bowbeer recommended denying Jones’s temporary-release motion because the case was closed and the court lacked jurisdiction.
Jeremy Jones, whose temporary-release motion was recommended for denial; and the Bureau of Prisons, which the court said has authority to decide whether to grant temporary release.
What happened
In Jeremy Jones v. Warden J. Fikes, Jones asked for temporary release while serving his sentence. His earlier request for habeas relief had already been dismissed on the merits, and judgment had been entered.
The court said it could not consider the new motion because the case was closed and the request did not fall within the court’s limited authority to handle matters connected to a completed case. The court also said that, even if it could consider the request, the facts Jones provided did not support recommending that the Bureau of Prisons grant temporary release for family or medical reasons.
Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer recommended that the emergency motion be denied. The report and recommendation was not itself a final order, and the notice allowed the parties to file written objections within 14 days after being served.
The detailed version
- Jones v. Fikes · No. 0:20-cv-01341
- Susan Nelson
- Apr. 28, 2021
Background
Jeremy Jones filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking habeas relief, meaning relief from allegedly unlawful custody or conditions of custody. The court had dismissed that petition on the merits, and judgment was entered on February 12, 2021. Jones then filed an emergency motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3622 seeking temporary release.
Court’s Analysis
The court first concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion. A federal court’s jurisdiction generally ends when a case is closed and judgment has been entered. The court may retain limited ancillary jurisdiction—authority to manage the completed case, protect its authority, and carry out its orders—but it found that Jones’s request did not fit within those categories because his petition had been dismissed in its entirety.
The court alternatively addressed the request on its merits. Section 3622 gives the Bureau of Prisons, rather than federal courts, authority to temporarily release a federal prisoner under specified conditions and for listed purposes. A court may only recommend that the Bureau of Prisons exercise that discretion.
Jones said that his child’s mother might need surgery and that his autistic child could not be left alone. The court found that he had not provided information about the surgery’s length or recovery period and had not shown that no one else could care for his child. Jones also sought release in connection with arthritic pain and his refusal of a corticosteroid injection because of COVID-19 concerns. The court found that he had not identified medical treatment unavailable in prison and noted a prison record indicating that he could move without assistance. The court therefore declined to recommend temporary release for either reason. It also noted that Jones’s claims concerning a residential drug abuse program, a residential reentry center, and relief under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act had already been rejected.
Recommendation and Review Process
Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer recommended that Jones’s emergency motion under § 3622 be denied. The document was a report and recommendation, not a final order or judgment, and it stated that specific written objections could be filed within 14 days after service.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.